OT: CRT or LCD for video editing?

Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/26/2006, 9:54 AM
Just to get an opinion from others - I'm currently using a 21" Dell CRT monitor and although it's nice, I have heard many prefer working with an LCD monitor - specifically a widescreen LCD.

I'm sitting on the fence right now about it - What are the issues for accuracy in color balance, contrast, etc when using an LCD versus a CRT? The LCD uses less energy and the footprint on a desktop is substantially less. NewEgg is running a special on a couple of 19" widescreens that I am seriously considering but before I purchase one, wanted to get others feedback on this..

Here's one of them - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824254001

TIA,

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 8/26/2006, 1:30 PM

It depends. Both of the monitors you mentioned are "computer" monitors, not "television" monitors--there is a difference! If you're wanting to be certain your color correction is up to NTSC standards, then neither the CRT or LCD will suit you.

You need an NTSC monitor. This has been discussed many, many times here. If you'll do a search you will find ample answers to your questions.


Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/26/2006, 2:13 PM
actually I was thinking more for day in and day out working. I realize that a computer monitor isn't calibrated to ntsc standards, so I appreciate you clarifying that.

I am concerned about power consumption, but not wanting to sacrifice usability at a cost of loss of image quality while working - is there less eye fatigue using an LCD?
fixler wrote on 8/26/2006, 4:03 PM
I worked on a Sony Trinitron CRT for many years and really liked it. However, my 19" Dell UltraSharp is just some much nicer. It makes me keen to upgrade to the 24" Dell Widescreen when I next upgrade the system.

I would think that as long as you have a NTSC/PAL preview monitor, for colours, you will be fine.
Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/26/2006, 4:06 PM
So do you find it less fatiguing on the eyes - that is one thing I am beginning to experience with using a CRT at 1600x1200@75. Would working with a widescreen 19" worK? I kind of like the idea of having more horizontal real estate when editing video...
farss wrote on 8/26/2006, 4:47 PM
Certainly LCDs = less eye strain and less heat which is a big bonus down here in summer but during the long cold winter I was kind of missing my CRTs. Also of course the space saving is considerable and it's way more practical to run dual LCDs than CRTs.

However CRTs are more accurate which is why I still have a rather clapped out broadcast monitor for checking anything that I have doubts about. Just forget the color balance issue for one second. The biggest problem with LCDs is you cannot see field dominance problems. One client of mine (another Vegas user) got caught out big time on this one. Moral to this story. When working with footage sourced outside always check your final ouput (ALL of it) on a LCD.

Bob.
Jim H wrote on 8/26/2006, 5:15 PM
I would consider two 19" LCDs before I'd pay for a wide screen. Two identical LCDs has been my set up for a year now and I'll never go back. It took a bit of time to get my workflow habits to change, but the benifits with NLE was immediate. Now I use both monitors for most everything I do. Having a NTSC monitor would be nice, but I distribute my stuff on the web anyway and what few projects ever see a TV look good enough for me... I'm no pro so taste may vary.
fldave wrote on 8/26/2006, 5:49 PM
Fatiguing on the eyes? Yes. I may be the exception, though.

I had brain trauma, resulting in a stroke, which screwed up my vision for over 3 years. Still very hypersensitive to pixelation and 60hz refresh rates. I use a laptop about 10 hours a day (work), and other monitors about 6 hours a day. Hate the laptop pixels, ever since the old IBM mainframe plasma monitors back in the 80s.

My stand alone monitors at home have all been CRTs, until 3 weeks ago. My CRTs are set for the highest refresh rate they can stand, anywhere from 72hz to 85hz, so there is no flicker.

3 weeks ago I broke down and bought a Viewsonic 19" LCD for my non-video editing PC. Definitely a different look, very clear and bright, much better than my laptop. I do, however, get vision fatigue more quickly than my CRTs, need to take more breaks. After I color correct on my editing machine with a CRT secondary display, I do use the LCD to preview the result just to check. From the old machine with the LCD, I can also output to my 65" HDTV for viewing also.

Again, this is my impression after a few weeks with an LCD viewing through a blown brain. I will say that I was more impressed at first than I thought I would be. You might start with one to use as a "sometimes" secondary display and see what you think. By the way, I went with the 4x3. If I was solely going to use it for viewing my web videos for editing or just watching DVDs, I would have gone 16x9. ( I've got the 65" for that!)
rmack350 wrote on 8/26/2006, 6:26 PM
Lots of good advice already but I'll add my two cents since I'd already written half of it this morning.

A CRT definitely gives you better color, contrast, and response time. For things like Photoshop I'd prefer the color rendering of a CRT. However, I've been using a pair of Apple LCDs for the last 6 months and they're really good. Colors don't quite match between them and I wouldn't actually recommend these models (kickstand-type) to a PC user, but they look good. They were hand-me-downs from one of our Media100 edit stations that we retired in favor of Axio, so I'mnot saying you should buy Apple displays.

All in all the LCDs have been great. More room on my desk, fewer rayguns pointed at my head. Eye strain seems about the same. When I have big runs of photoshop work my eyes dry out and my neck hurts, same as before.

I still don't quite trust them for color. If it were any other monitor I'd be more able to adjust them for color and brightness. I have a spyder that can calibrate one monitor only. The second one I'd "rough in".

A pair of 19's would be fine, bigger is even better. Two big wide screens would be excellent! Consider mounting them on arms to make them easy to move. A very nice addition that gets them totally off the desk and allows you to pull them close if you need to.

Refresh rate isn't a factor with LCDs, as far as I know, although it used to be that the Apple LCD backlights actually had a flicker that you couldn't sync a camera to. For CRTs, I can't work with refresh rates below 80 Hz and usually set things to 85. FLDave isn't alone in that need!

Like everyone has said, if you're editing SD video then you need to get an SD CRT to preview it on. Preferably a decent studio model if the finances support it.

Rob Mack
GlennChan wrote on 8/26/2006, 8:36 PM
When working with footage sourced outside always check your final ouput (ALL of it) on a LCD.
Bob, you mean a CRT?

2- Here's my two cents:

CRT flicker: The refresh rate is a big part of this (the higher the better), but the monitor phosphors also make a difference. Some phosphors have a much shorter decay time (i.e. some of the Sony Trinitrons), so those CRTs will need a higher refresh rate.

LCDs don't have flicker issues. In rare cases, I've seen LCDs hooked up via analog and the calibration is off, making text harder to read. With proper calibration or DVI (where no calibration of the interface is needed) you won't have this problem.

If the monitor is much brighter than your environment, that may give you eye strain because the contrast is too much.

3- In terms of color accuracy for TV output, I would preview on an external monitor. A broadcast monitor would be better than a consumer CRT TV, which would be much much better than any computer monitor. Vegas displays the video weird... i.e. in studioRGB color space, which isn't what people will see. You won't see other things like interlace flicker or overscan.

It shouldn't matter too much what you use for your computer monitors. I would prefer at least one LCD since they work better in multi-monitor setups. They don't cause magnetic interference with each other like CRTs do. They also tend to have smaller bezels.

For Photoshop work, CRTs do provide better color in general. They don't have a raised black level like LCD, so you can get saturated dark colors. You also don't get the color probe deforming the LCD screen. The best monitor would likely be systems designed for accurate color... i.e. the Sony Artisan system (discontinued), where the color probe is specifically matched to the monitor's phosphors.